Harvey Weinstein’s upcoming trial was always destined to serve as a knotty intersection of the #MeToo movement, the criminal justice system, and the media covering both—but it grew more complicated last Friday. That’s when New York Judge James Burke closed his Manhattan courtroom, barring the assembled press from covering what’s known as a Molineux hearing—a pre-trial proceeding that determines if uncharged-but-alleged criminal acts can be used as evidence. Burke explained he made the decision to avoid tainting the jury pool while he weighs whether to allow for testimony from Weinstein accusers who were not involved in the incidents the former movie mogul is charged in. Burke’s decision meant the press wouldn’t hear each side’s arguments on the merits on potentially powerful testimony.Prosecutors did not protest the ruling.

“As you can imagine, this is powerful testimony that can greatly increase the prosecutor’s chance of winning,” Lance Fletcher, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor told me. “Arguing that one or two accusers is lying or mistaken is much easier than arguing that a large number has concocted a conspiracy against you. The Manhattan D.A. is probably agreeing to keep it private for now to reduce the risk of a successful appeal by Weinstein on the grounds of a tainted jury, should he get convicted.”

The move frustrated many of the media outlets covering the case, in which the one-time Hollywood kingmaker is facing five felony counts—including first and third-degree rape and predatory sexual assault—based on the allegations of two accusers. (A representative for Weinstein declined to comment for this story.) The New York Times, Associated Press, New York Post,Daily News, Fox News, and more filed an emergency appeal for reconsideration last Monday. (Advance Publications, Vanity Fair’s parent company, joined the appeal as well.)

“If this case is about anything, it’s the toxic nature of secrecy. Now it’s time for accountability and openness. That’s why the courts are open,” David McCraw, vice president and deputy general counsel at The New York Times Company, told me. “Openness ensures credibility and fairness. You’re dealing with a big-deal person and the public needs to see that Weinstein is being treated like every other defendant.”

He continued: “The Constitution requires it to be open unless the parties meet a particularly high standard for closing. It is rare for parties to seek closure of such hearings, and then rare for a court to grant the closing motion.”

Burke’s decision also came as a shock to many interested observers outside the media. Weinstein’s downfall served as a major catalyst for the #MeToo movement after several accusers came forward to The New York Times and The New Yorker in 2017, prompting more than 80 women to eventually publicly accuse him of sexual misconduct or assault. (Weinstein has denied all allegations of non-consensual sex.)

Legal reckonings in such cases have been few and far between; for many, the Weinstein trial has seemed like it might provide one. ln fact, prosecutors seemed to be following the playbook laid out in the second trial of Bill Cosby, one of the few high-profile men to be convicted of a sex crime in the #MeToo era. After the comedian’s first sexual assault trial ended in a hung jury, prosecutors in his case sought testimony from a number of the comedian’s accusers at his retrial. While the charges he faced were based on the testimony of Andrea Constand, who said that Cosby had drugged and sexually assaulted her in January 2004, a Pennsylvania judge allowed five other women to tell their similar stories. Cosby was ultimately found guilty of sexual assault, and sentenced to 3 to 10 years in state prison.

Advertisement

So to some, the idea that even a pre-trial proceeding in the Weinstein case might be closed to the press was cause for concern. But in speaking to attorneys and alleged victims this week as they await a ruling on the appeal, I’ve found a group of stakeholders navigating a complex pre-trial environment.

Lauren Sivan—who accused the film producer publicly of sexual misconduct in October 2017, alleging he masturbated in front of her a decade prior—told me she’s not bothered by last week’s closed-door proceedings.

“Both sides in this case want the hearings closed, and keeping it closed could help protect potential witnesses who’ve been through a lot and could prevent a later appeal by his side that he didn’t get a fair trial,” she told me.

Gloria Allred, who is representing one of the two alleged victims for whom charges were filed and one accuser who is a potential witness, told me that the press had a strong argument, but that “it was a difficult issue for the court.”

“This decision protects the other potential witnesses who might testify at the trial regarding their accusations against Mr. Weinstein,” she said. “The court’s decision will have a major impact on the upcoming trial.”

“I’ve never heard of the court closing this type of hearing to the public before,” he said. But the decision makes sense, he added, “If he revealed the names of these women now, or allowed everyone to attend the hearing, it would be almost impossible for him to avoid tainting the jury pool if he ultimately decides that these women should not testify at the trial—because everyone would be talking about these other accusers and what allegedly happened to them.”

No matter how it proceeds, the court has a responsibility to handle the Weinstein trial in a sensitive way, said University of Oregon professor Dr. Jennifer Freyd, whose research delves into the psychology of sexual violence. “There is a concept called institutional betrayal,” she explained. “In some of the most extreme cases, if the criminal justice system seemingly bends the rules and appears to be protecting the perpetuator, it can be an extreme betrayal. It can really harm the victims’ well-being, physically and mentally.”

Ambra Gutierrez—who accused Weinstein of sexually assaulting her in his Manhattan office in 2015—told me she will testify if asked against Weinstein “to save others, to change the future for our children, for moms, sisters, whoever. We need to try to be selfless for once.”

No matter what becomes of the alleged victim’s testimony when the case comes to trial in September, Gutierrez does not want the former mogul’s status to influence the outcome. “I want to see justice. Treating everyone the same way for the mistakes they made.”